THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »
Showing posts with label Darwinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwinism. Show all posts

Sunday, April 3, 2011

Do You Want to Live Longer?

Collected from my exploits elsewhere on the internet.



"Want to live longer? Eat a Mediterranean diet. The Florentine - Elixir of Life?

It takes time to plan and execute a meal. It takes even more time to learn how to cook, and on top of that there are all the mistakes and what-have-you that inevitably come with learning a skill. People seem always to be looking for a quick and easy solution rather than putting forth the effort needed for a gauranteed result. Want to lose weight, get healthy and live longer? You could eat well (which requires planning and preparation) and exercise daily (which requires, well, exercise). OR you could take a gamble on three easy payments ...

For what it's worth, it is actually less expensive to eat well. Take a look at this survey of families from around the world. Each picture is of a family, the food they buy in a week, and what they spend on it (translated into USD where necessary):
One Week's Worth of Food Around Our Planet

Notice anything? There's a sweet spot right around the $200 mark where the people are both well off AND not spending a fortune on food. How do they achieve it? Lots of grains, lots of produce, a fresh meat meal and minimal microwave goods. Surprise, surprise.

The thing is, the culture of convenience is attacking our lifespans in more ways than just our diets. The post which began this discussion was presented with the question "Want to live longer?" and there are many factors that go into a long and healthy life (because who wants to spend the last 20 years out of 100 bedridden?) that are all put in jeopardy by the demands of modern life. Not only is the home-cooked meal now the exception rather than the rule, but so have the morning constitutional, the family game night, and in many cases life-long friends started to become exceedingly rare things. If you want to live to be 100 - and be hale and hardy, too - here's a video ya'll should watch. The presenter found several communities with an unusual number of centegenarians (Yes, one of them was in Italy) and set out to find out what they had in common. The answers may surprise you.

TED.com - "How To Live To be 100" by Dan Buettner

Saturday, April 2, 2011

The Mad Jack Takes On Michael Shanklin

Collected from elsewhere on the internet, these were my comments to Mr. Shanklin regarding his naïve anarchistic beliefs. All anarchism is unrealistic, but his ideas regarding every person being subject to no law other than that which they choose for themselves was especially appalling in its sheer, blind idiocy.



"So what you are saying is that you are someone who would gladly force your will on others, murder for profit, and ensure that NO ONE is free just as long as you are getting something in return?" etc, etc, ad nauseam ...
I love how good you anarchists are at making stuff up. It must be wonderful to have such active imaginations and such a detailed fantasy world to live in.
In fact, I believe quite the opposite. Which is why I am no anarchist and I do not support a stateless society. Anarchy and Statelessness are only possible in a world filled with a type of person that is actually so rare in reality that it is almost fair to say that the advocates of such "systems" are experiencing an almost total disconnect from reality. The truly amusing thing is that for everyone to be "free" absent a state, all ambition, striving and competition will have to be somehow culled from the race: in reality, an anarchist or stateless society would collapse as soon as the first punch is thrown.
That is, anarchy is more dependent on "sheeple" for "success" (for what success is there to be had without striving and ambition?) than any other government concept in the history of man.
Until sociopathy is cured, until there are no jerks left in the world, until a way of imbuing each generation with a total and homogenous sense of morality is accomplished, anarchy and/or statelessness is impossible. And as the proud and rather arrogant owner of certain qualities, such as ambition and a general disregard for useless people; it makes me happy to say that there will be no anarchy or statelessness within my lifetime.
"Once people take the time to research dispute resolution organizations and competing law, they will realize how it is the future ..."
A person who attends Berkeley is more likely to have liberal ideas, a person who attends Georgetown more likely to have conservative ideas. I suppose if you spend all your time reading fantasies, you're more likely to be an anarchist.
Your arguments aren't arguments at all, Shanklin. Simply declarations. "It will NOT be as you say! It will be GLORIOUS!" and waiting for your choir to shout "Amen! Preach it Brother!" behind you. Which I suppose might be construed as an argument to popularity, but I'll grant the benefit of the doubt and not invent things whole cloth the way your friends, such as Mr. Mathewson, have been doing.
You say we need education? Educate us. But I don't believe your system has what it takes to suffer dissent and come out ahead. It takes a society full of anarchists to make an anarchist society, and that sounds like the very antithesis of freedom of thought to me.
Especially given what I've seen of anarchists and their intolerance and hysterical decrial of anything that's NOT anarchy ...since I support some form of a state, I must constitute a threat to your freedom, no? Does that or does that not make me a target for any "freedom fighter" out there who wishes to silence my voice? If it does not, what law will avenge me when cooler heads do not prevail?
If I and people like me are allowed to live, your statelessness will collapse. If we are murdered for the sake of your precious homogeny of thought, then statelessness never was.



The following was my next post in the discussion.


"Murderers would be sought much harder in a free society"
By what law or right? You simply declare it to be so when in fact you have no support for your declaration. They may be pursued harder, but will they be pursued fairly? Who is to guarantee that the right person is pursued? Who is to prevent the phrase "Dead or Alive" (or simply "Dead") from preventing a person seeing trial?
What happens when Posse X, hired by Grieving Widow A, encounters Posse Y, hired to protect Suspect B? With no law, there is nothing illegal about it. It might be immoral, but that hasn't stopped anyone's dollars from buying force, violence, and coercion, which will be valuable and highly sought commodities on an open market. What happens when Posse X is a group of folks who hunt as their day job and take bounties for the general welfare; but Posse Y is a company by the name of Blackwater? After the shootout, has justice been served?
By what law or right does the killing finally stop?
I'm a fan of Westerns, too, but I understand why the people of Texas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, etc, were glad to have real law come about at the turn of the century.
"Government is coercion, and unneeded."
More declarations. I've got one of my own:
Any reasonable study of human history and nature will reveal that total freedom and lawlessness are unsupportable systems. What then arises is the pragmatic issue of What and How Much freedom it is necessary to sacrifice in order for everyone to maximize the amount enjoyed by the largest number of people.

















Thursday, March 31, 2011

(Brief) Thoughts on Vaccines, Skepticism, and Vaccine Skepticism

Collected from my online exploits.



1) Vaccines have been proven to work. See eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio; the formerly declining rates of MMR; etc. that cannot have any other explanation.
2) If burden of proof falls to the positive claim, then it is up to the vaccine folk to prove their various claims, e.g. that vaccines kill or that there are "natural" alternatives. Therefore, skepticism of their claims is justified.
3)IF there were pre-existing "natural" treatments/vaccines, as some people claim (the argument being that vaccines work, but are unnecessarily dangerous/powerful) then we would not be seeing diseases that have been controlled with vaccines running rampant in areas without access to the vaccines. Don't even get me started on the supernatural treatments ...

Skepticism is about the discipline and detachment to engage in rigorous systematic testing of verifiable claims. It is not doubt for doubt's sake. So Arturo's definition is somewhat closer, but it still misses the point: There comes a point when it is no longer prudent or virtuous to be skeptical.

Vitamins were not discovered until the early 20th century; the first vitamin supplement (C, for those who care) was not available until the 1930's - yet there doesn't seem to be much skepticism regarding their effectiveness, especially in light of their novelty in the scope of the entire field and history of nutrition.

I would not be surprised to learn that there are, in fact, anti-vitamin activists who believe God is in their whole foods keeping them healthy or some such nonsense (and in fact, now that I think about it, the Raw Food movement may at its roots be a manifestation of Vitamin Skepticism ...) but this does not mean that we, as skeptics, must abandon our certainty in Vitamins due to doubts raised largely by Lay-Knowledge, Magical Thinking, or downright Quackery.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Shocked Out of Cultural Relativism

I realize I have been neglecting this blog somewhat, but fortunately that does not mean that I've not been opining elsewhere. The following - which will apply to most, if not all, of the posts I will be making over the next few days - comes from a discussion in which I was engaged some time back.




I heard an anthropologist talk about an island tribe that practices ritual homosexuality and pedophilia. The superstition goes that semen = life force, and that for a male child to have enough life force to assure the continuation of the species/race/tribe/whatever that he must ingest semen from the older tribe members. This ritual fellation begins at a surprisingly early age and continues for an extensive period of time until the child is deemed to have absorbed enough life force to marry.

The men jealously guard their semen to such an extent that a husband and wife only cohabitate during a specific part of the year, during which conception is attempted. Women are viewed simply as factories for the production of children and recreational sex - and especially non-procreative sex - is not only frowned upon, but feared. During the remainder of the year, the men live together in communal barracks, segregated from the women as much as is possible.

This anthropologist presented this little tale as an illustration in favor of cultural relativism. The argument was something to the effect that This Tribe has managed to do well enough for itself and does not seem to suffer for its behaviors, which to outsiders seem (to put it perhaps TOO mildly) bizarre.

But the argument, like most of cultural relativism, only stands up in a vacuum. Has the tribe indeed done well for itself? I contend that they obviously have not. They are a stone age culture, speaking a language only they speak, perpetuating a culture that has, in fact, failed to thrive. They have no wealth, no art, and no science. Their only technology is the same technology that every people on the world has managed to develop: means to shelter themselves from the elements, and a means to procure food.

A modern look at their practice shows them to be abhorrent, because our understanding of psychology - a science, by the way, which is advanced literally thousands of years beyond their ken - reveals to us the undeniable and irreversible damage that these people do to their progeny as a matter of course. And it shows in their society: they are a culture of pederasts, fearful and distrustful of the women whom they depend on in order to perpetuate themselves and who must nurture them through those early years before they go off to the abuses of the men's barracks. This is a culture that has managed to survive not for any virtue of its own, but in spite of itself.

This culture (whose name, I'm afraid, escapes me) is not the only one of its kind, though its practices are definitely the strangest and most extreme I've yet heard of. It is tales of peoples like this, who never advanced enough in some cases to even discover fire or writing, that cured me of any Cultural Relativism. We cannot judge people in a vacuum, especially in an increasingly interconnected world. A people is only as good as its contributions to our overall advancement, and a people that never strives, that lurks in prehistoric superstition and rites must be brought forward or left behind in the dusty annals of history.

To listen to Relativists is to risk damning ourselves to the same stagnant fate.

Monday, March 29, 2010

A TED-Talk on Moral Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism, and the Religious Monopoly on Ethics.

I came across this Talk at www.ted.com/talks and was pleased to hear that the concept of moral objectivity and the courage to have it are being advocated in the world, and ESPECIALLY in such a prestigious venue as a TED conference.



While Sam at several points betrays a decidedly Liberal bias along with his - laudable - secularism, I agree whole-heartedly with his premise: that in order to advance humanity, we must overcome our irrational and potentially dangerous fear of judging and condemning deleterious behaviors and beliefs. Adherence to subjective morality or moral relativism are cop-outs which permit evil to exist, thrive, and eventually prey upon those around and not just within it.

Sam Harris is the author of 2004's "The End of Faith" and 2007's "Letter To A Christian Nation."

Friday, January 22, 2010

A Daily Dose of Darwinism

I would like, for a brief interlude, to turn my attentions from the external violence in which we so often here immerse ourselves to a more personal, private contemplation of individual import. This is a matter of seemingly little significance which, I believe, may have far reaching consequence for the society of men at large. This is a matter rarely discussed for it's percieved lack of weight, however, a knowledge of a man's choices in this minute regard of his daily life can inform you more of his character than any gross achievement, failure, or undertaking. Like the universe about us, this seemingly small decision has as much, if not greater, an impact as great spectacles of either man or nature.

I refer here, of course, to shaving.

Of course there is no argument as to the percieved pettiness of the subject. Shaving has been for some time little more than a chore, a necessary evil to be undertaken for to fit with the norms of common hygiene in as quick and simple a manner as possible, that we might continue our day with more purposeful activities.

This is the era of rush hour, freeways and carpools; of drive-through eateries, microwaved dinners and skipped breakfasts; of stylists instead of barbers, electric shavers and disposable triple-bladed razors.


Today is a day where ease is key, where while proper presentation is important, moreso that we are able to achieve such quickly in order to sooner return to work. In a day where it often becomes necessary to be working on your cell phone in traffic on the way to the office, who has time to perform a proper shave - especially when that activity, too, is performed in the car? What possible benefits could such an activity bestow upon a person, much less our high-speed, high-intensity society?

One of the answers is obvious: proper grooming has been a hallmark of desirability in all social fields for centuries. Even bearded men have, with little exception, been expected to keep their facial hair tamed and at a predetermined length. Even at the end of the 19th century, when long - and to our modern sensibilities, unruly - beards were fashionable (see Presidents Ruthorford B. Hayes and James A. Garfield, for instance), there were styling demands upon them that dictated length and shape. All of these dictates demand shaving.


What adherence to certain methods and modes of grooming can indicate, therefore, is a person's mentality, their philosophy or religion, their social status, and even their breeding and etiquette. Whether, what and when a man shaves bespeaks volumes of his character, and rightly so: it is as part of our social presentation that we undergo such grooming. But what of the how of his shave? How can something private, as the act of shaving so often is, create a meaningful effect in and upon society? If the goal is to create a certain appearance, what matter is it the manner in which the effect is achieved?

Herein I propone the practice of straight-razor shaving, a practice which has garnered an interesting reputation in the years since safety and ease overcame what was once a fine and delicate skill common to all groomed men. This reputation - namely, of the use of straight razors as a dangerous, difficult, and time-consuming method delivering the finest shave developed by man - serves both to portray the skill as an archaic and obsolete relic of simpler times as well as to elevate it as a sign of class and luxury that place it, in the communal mind of the common man, well above his reach and station.


That high things - difficult, dangerous, things, things of luxury and class, all such manner of noble things - should be seen as out of reach and above station is, more than any other thing, indicative of the malaise and rot that plagues our so-called modern society. It seems impossible to strive for greatness as a culture when we are not willing to put forth the effort needed to enjoy the best in our daily, personal lives.

There is no doubt that a straight razor is a dangerous implement. Five inches of blade, honed to a nearly microscopic edge, backed by nearly an inch of sturdy steel is perfectly capable of inflicting severe wounds - and when one willingly places this device upon their neck, it is well within the realm of possibility that these wounds could be lethal. Add upon the difficulty of mastering the blade the plethora of other skills necessary to the enjoyment of proper hygiene - honing and stropping the implement yourself, learning to lather and apply real shaving soap, a small understanding of dermatology necessary for to understand the hair and skin you treat - and we have an intimidating amount of knowledge to learn at the risk of almost certain discomfort and possible injury or death.

I argue that these are all good and desirable things.

To begin, I will address the immediate danger of the blade. Of itself, it is harmless. It is safely enclosed in its handle, it neither opens nor moves itself about. The realization of this is a thing which grants a man new insight into his own life, the realization that all tools, all weapons, all skills are merely objects or ideas, that they are worthless and meaningless without his action upon them. To take that razor in his hand and place it upon his neck, he places himself only in as much danger as he allows. Skill dictates whether he can move the blade in the correct way, at the correct angle. In the beginning, we are certain of the occassional nick or cut, which grants the short-term rewards of increasing comfort with increasing skill - nevermind that a stoic (and most important in this regard, unflinching) tolerance of discomfort is a valuable ability and a global signal of masculinity. Skill must be achieved by practice, by dedication to mastery, and what better motivation than the knowledge that a lack of skill in such a case could bring results as disastrous as an untrained driver or marksman?


But, some would say, why must this exercise of mastery over a dangerous implement and a dangerous environment be practiced with a blade upon our flesh? Are there not numerous other dangers to which we may expose ourselves daily, if the goal is to build character through adversity? What of driving and shooting, which you mention?

The reason for shaving as the ideal method is derived from it's privacy. This privacy, first and foremost, prevents the ungentlemanly endangerment of others. In any driving situation the risk of killing another due to a lack of aptitude is at least equal to the risk of killing yourself. In firearms, the risk of endangering another is almost invariably greater, as it takes a remarkable stupidity to unintentionally harm the self by way of a properly functioning bullet and piece, and even when shooting alone in a secluded area, bullets are capable of travelling extreme distances to fall upon more populated locales. Further, expertise in these fields is readily exhibited to society, and there are external influences to motivate the practice and proficiency of them. It can be said that driving or shooting in a responsible, skillful manner is often not motivated by a personal desire for excellence, but rather due to fear of appearing incompetent.

Shaving, on the other hand, takes place within the privacy of the home, within the bedroom or bath, and often without observation by even intimate cohabitants. It grants several minutes of quiet excercise and disciplined activity which is undertaken for no reason other than a personal desire to not only be socially presentable, true, but to do so in the most exacting manner - as it is shown that a straight razor, properly wielded, offers the closest and least irritating shave available. It is also worth noting that the few minutes of meditative activity afforded by the privacy and discipline of a proper shave help to calm and clear the mind, invigorating and honing it for excellence in the day's myriad endeavors.

In a way, the proper shave takes a place akin to meditation or prayer within a day. I do not mean public spectacles masquerading as meditation or prayer, of course, but that intimate piece of calm and reflection that so often accompanies ritual contemplation. In fact, it has many elements in common with such rituals - the shaver first bathes, either in whole or facially, then stands before the basin as an altar arrayed with his blade, his soap, his brush, his strop, and his water. The precise, repetitive act of stropping, the preparation of the brush and soap, careful creation and application of a fine lather, not to mention the practiced movements of the razor itself all have a refreshing, comfortable, yet vivid and intense effect on a person's mind. At the completion of a shave, after the final washing of the face and perhaps even the anointing with colognes we often find ourselves new men, baptised by steel into the mastery of our own small universes.


Then again, many of these contemplations are purely speculative, placed forward by myself as an admitted amateur psychologist and sociologist. To this end, I proffer a more physical, biological, mathematical advantage made by the straight razor upon the institution of our greater society. While my aforementioned conclusions are speculative, the danger posed by a razor in untrained hands is absolute and undeniable. What, then, would the consequence be if all of man woke to his toilet on the morrow to find that all of his modern, electrical or disposable facility were replaced by the blade and brush? Suppose further that to remain completely unshorn were not an option. Surely there would be those who, in their haste and arrogance, and failing to appreciate the nature of their activity, would perish before their basins by their own hands. Silly idealistic notions about the value of human life must be departed with here: what use is a man who cannot master a blade? What use is a man who imagines his endeavors so lofty as not to trouble himself with the very substance of his life and being? While we may mourn the loss of acquantances, those survivors would doubtless be of the magnitude of man who understands and appreciates his abilities, his tools, and his place in and effect upon the world. Doubtless that, even should such qualities not breed true, they would be bestowed upon the following generations as an acknowledged part of the proper rearing of boys into men. True, such a time already once was.


There was a time, and it ended not too long ago, when all shorn men had achieved mastery of these skills. In this time, every man started his day faced with danger, every man looked at the prospect of death in his own reflection and stoicly, skillfully defeated it for no reason other than to take pride in his own appearance. Men with great names marked the tail end of this era, men who were known for gallantry, dignity and valor: men like Ernest Hemingway, Theodore Roosevelt, and Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron. While there were doubtless many factors that went into the production of such greatness, there is a stoutness of character that is granted by a daily brush with death. It is often said that the best meals are those taken after enduring a life-threatening situation. To survive by an act of will is a dose of Darwinism that brings out the best in a man - he knows that it is his skill and mastery of his body, the tools in his hands, and world about him that permits his existence. It imbues him with the confidence to face down adversity and the quiet contemplation to view the world in a more romantic light and with more passionate vigor. It is his daily proof that a thing worth doing, is worth doing well.